The scenario playing out in Honduras this week is one of the most fascinating and instructive political crises in decades because it demonstrates how different factions claiming the mantle of Democracy view Constitutional rule of law.  

The Honduran Constitution limits Presidents to a single term of office and prohibits constitutional referendums within six months of a general election. Last week President Zelaya announced that he would illegally hold a referendum this November with the purpose of extending his term in office indefinitely.  Honduras’ Supreme Court and Attorney General ruled this attempt was unconstitutional and ordered the military to remove President Zelaya from office, while the Honduran Congress named Roberto Michelliti to serve out the remaining seven months of the term. 

The U.N., O.A.S., President Obama, and Leftists throughout Latin America, including Chavez and Castro, have denounced the coup and demanded that President Zelaya be returned to office immediately. "It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," President Obama said last week. "The region has made enormous pr ogress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. ... We don't want to go back to a dark past."

Given the circumstances, however, was the revolt by the Supreme Court, Congress, and Honduran military a crime against Democracy, or a brave effort to save it? It’s critical to note that although this has been labeled a military coup, the Honduran military did not take control of the government—it removed a President who ignored the rule of law and turned power over to the Congress.  Shockingly, though, President Obama seems far more upset over the military’s intervention than he was over Zelaya’s unconstitutional power grab. 

So how should a nation protect its Democracy when a president decides to subvert constitutional rule of law in order to extend his own power?  These are profound questions that are far more important than the political future of any individual, party, or movement. 

Ever since the Magna Carta in 1215 introduced the modern principle that leaders are bound by the rule of law, there has been a continual struggle between societies seeking to become more free and democratic and leaders attempting to increase their power by ignoring, suspending, or rewriting the laws that limit them. 

In recent history, this has been a standard tactic of Marxists throughout Latin America. Even those coming to office democratically begin seizing private industry, limiting free speech and press, and extending their power through constitutional amendments, fraudulent elections, and widespread voter intimidation. Hugo Chavez is the perfect example of this. After failing to seize the Venezuelan government in a 1992 military coup, he won a presidential election in ’98 and has aggressively seized control of the media and major industry20while rewriting the constitution in an attempt to end term limits.    

Marxists have always believed that their socialist ends justify undemocratic means. President Zelaya, a friend of Hugo Chavez, was using the same playbook in Honduras before he was thrown out. So who was the friend of Democracy—President Zelaya, or those who deposed him? 

As Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) states, "The people of Honduras have struggled too long to have their hard-won democracy stolen from them by a Chavez-style dictator. The Honduran Congress, the Honduran Supreme Court, and the Honduran military have acted in accordance to the Honduran constitution and the rule of law.” 

It’s time that our own President, Congress, and Supreme Court recognize the fact that Constitutions matter both at home and abroad. 



Craig Ziemba is a pilot who lives in Meridian. To have him speak at you event, email craigziemba@aol.com.